Globe editorial: The Trudeau cabinet doesn’t need new faces. It needs new ideas

Immigration money quote from editorial (Globe going all in on immigration given series of articles and commentary):

Fixing this will require a change of philosophy. The Liberals need to ask themselves whether bringing the population equivalent of 5½ Reginas into the country over three years is the best idea during a period of sagging labour productivity and a widespread housing shortage.

Full devastating editorial:

ernment.

Source: Globe editorial: The Trudeau cabinet doesn’t need new faces. It needs new ideas

Keller: It’s time for Canada to take its foot off the immigration gas pedal

Indeed as I and others have been arguing for some time with respect to Temporary Foreign Workers and productivity, along with a more serious discussion regarding immigration policy and programs:

The guy who cut my hair last week taught me something about the Temporary Foreign Worker program: It’s even looser than I thought.

Fixing that, and a number of other things that aren’t quite right about the immigration system, comes down to the Trudeau government. So, don’t hold your breath.

After Sean Fraser was shuffled from Immigration Minister to Housing Minister on Wednesday, he said Canada can’t “close the door on newcomers.” As if that’s what the government’s critics are calling for. Is it possible for Canadians to discuss a serious economic issue, seriously? Or is polarizing name-calling all that our politics has left?

The Liberals have a habit of crafting marketing strategies before policies, and then having policies become hostage to the talking points. Immigration is such a case. We’re about to find out whether the Liberals can make a course correction, or whether they’ll double down on the polarizing talking points, attacking suggestions for reform as so much xenophobia.

The Liberals have raised Canada’s immigration targets, year after year, while also making it ever easier for businesses to recruit low-wage, not-so-temporary temporary foreign workers, and schools to enroll hundreds of thousands of overseas students – many of whom sought student visas in part for the chance to become low-wage, not-so-temporary temporary foreign workers.

One of the negative consequences is that the national housing squeeze has been made worse, with a big jump in postpandemic arrivals pushing high prices higher and low vacancy rates lower. It’s not political. It’s just arithmetic.

The Liberals could fix things – not by stopping immigration but by scaling it back, and making it more targeted to highly skilled economic immigrants. The latter is supposed to be the core mission of our immigration system. Returning to that common-sense approach would benefit Canadians and the economy.

And now, back to my neighbourhood barbershop. The place was empty when I walked in on a Friday afternoon, so I dropped into a chair and started chatting with the barber. He spoke excellent English with a Spanish accent, and I asked where he was from.

“Mexico,” he said.

How long had he been in Canada?

“One year and seven months.”

Why did he come to Canada?

“I looked online for jobs, found one I wanted and applied.”

Temporary Foreign Worker program?

“Yes.”

He gave me a good haircut (as good as can be when the subject has little more than half a head of hair) and a better insight into one part of the immigration system.

It’s perfectly reasonable for Canada to have a system for filling temporary gaps for highly skilled labour. That’s what the TFW program is supposed to do.

But that’s mostly not what it’s doing. Instead, it’s offering low-pay, low-skill and low-productivity employers a way to recruit overseas, at low cost, rather than having to search harder at home, or offer higher wages, or invest in technology and training to increase efficiency.

The government of Canada’s TFW Job Bank has around 10,000 postings from employers searching for a temporary foreign worker. Most jobs offer a salary of less than $40,000. Nearly all pay less than $60,000, which is below the Canadian average.

There are, for example, 17 employers looking for barbers, from Edmonton to Hamilton to Montreal, with pay starting at $15 an hour.

There are also some high-wage jobs. A Vancouver health care provider is looking for five family physicians, at a salary of $300,000 to $350,000. A veterinary clinic is offering up to $190,000 for an emergency vet. eBay Canada in Toronto is seeking a software engineer, at a salary of $160,000 to $180,000.

But the TFW database is mostly low-wage work.

Home Hardware in Woodstock, Ont., is seeking two cashiers at $16.55 an hour. A Mac’s Convenience in Edmonton is looking for one cashier at $15 an hour. City Avenue Market in Port Coquitlam, B.C., needs a cashier, at $17 an hour.

A Tim Hortons in Sherbrooke, Que., wants seven “assistant waiter/waitress,” at $15.25 an hour. Western Pizza in Regina has four vacancies for servers, at $14 an hour.

All of those low-wage jobs, along with most others I looked at, were listed as full-time and permanent. These aren’t temporary positions, even though that’s what the TFW program is notionally about.

And I haven’t touched on the larger but more opaque group of foreign workers: those who come on a student visa, work at low-wage service jobs, and then use Canadian educational credentials plus Canadian work experience in hopes of landing permanent residency in the country.

If everyone on that path was a graduate in engineering, computer science or other highly paid fields, the system would make sense. But a large share of the visa students are not.

As I wrote earlier this week, our plans to use the various immigration streams to raise GDP per capita are being undermined by too heavy a focus on filling low-wage, low-skill jobs.

We can make our immigration system better. But first, we need an honest conversation about what our immigration system aims to do. And what’s not working.

Source: Opinion: It’s time for Canada to take its foot off the immigration gas …

Letters to Globe Editor on the Change to Self-Administered Citizenship Oath

Of note, letters in response to the Globe’s excellent editorial, What we all lose when we lose the citizenship ceremony. Opportunity for Minister Miller to make his mark and reverse this counter-productive proposal:

Stand on guard

Re “Citizenship is about more than just a click, a ceremony or an oath” (July 21): As is often the case, the bottom line is an influential factor for discouraging prospective Canadian citizens from having in-person swearing-in ceremonies, although the government prefers to highlight the speeding up of the procedure.

The government also wants to spare employees from having to take unpaid leave to attend. This should not be an issue. If voters in a national election are allotted three paid hours to do their duty, the same should be the law for citizenship ceremonies.

How underwhelming to sit at one’s computer, alone, after all the work entailed to pass the test, no one with whom to celebrate. Where is the government’s sense of occasion?

Ann Sullivan Peterborough, Ont.


I am appalled by the idea that our citizenship ceremonies should be reduced to a click on one’s computer.

I became a citizen at the age of 26. It was a proud event. I was born in a country where such things are important and respected, just like the flag.

There, the flag was treated with great respect and only hoisted for special days or events, then taken down at sundown. It really bothers me to see a row of faded Canadian flags at a car lot, a car with two flags to protest whatever or a homeowner proudly hoisting a flag, but only to see it faded and torn years later.

Another national symbol going down the drain. I am a proud Canadian. It hurts.

Vince Devries Ladysmith, B.C.


I became a naturalized Canadian many decades ago.

Because I was already a British subject, I swore an oath in a bureaucrat’s office, signed documents and I was done. As time went on and I attended friends’ public ceremonies, I developed a strong feeling of having been shorted.

A public ceremony, I think, would have made me feel more Canadian more quickly.

R. A. Halliday Saskatoon


My memory worsens by the day. But, although it happened decades ago, I will never forget my citizenship ceremony.

I recall the interesting mix of people who were there that sunny day in Vancouver. There was the smile and raised eyebrow of the citizenship judge when, feeling flustered, I told her that Canada Day was July 4. Immediately knowing my mistake, I said sorry. I became a Canadian.

As a retired university teacher, I know that nothing compares with the in-person experience. If that is true for birthdays and weddings, it is equally true for the life-changing event of becoming a citizen.

Richard Harris Hamilton


I arrived in Canada in 1968. Immediately after the required five years of residency, I applied for citizenship.

I remember my ceremony well. In those days, we were each given a Bible on which to swear allegiance to the Queen. It was the New Testament, and being Jewish I was not able to swear on it.

I asked if there was an Old Testament, and there began a good deal of searching. I was about to stop them, I would just affirm, but then a copy was placed into my hands.

With great pride and a swelled heart, I pledged my fealty to my new country and liege.

Michael Gilbert Toronto

Source: Trudeau’s cabinet shuffle plus other letters, July 28

A Toronto principal’s suicide was wrongly linked to anti-racism training. Here’s what was really said

The alternative reflexive perspective but one that discounts the assessment by the WSIB (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board). And just as Paradkar can state “government organizations are often given credulity even when not merited,” the same can often be said for DEI consultants and activists:

One man’s fatal mental health crisis has been co-opted by political opportunists and turned into an attack on anti-racism training while also, chillingly, targeting one Black woman.

Former Toronto school principal Richard Bilkszto, 60, ended his life July 13. Suicide is a horrendous loss, no ifs, no buts. It’s terrible to contemplate the mental torture that leads to that decision and terrible to experience its crushing aftermath.

While experts say suicides are rarely caused by single factors, the man’s lawyer linked his death to a 10-minute interaction two years ago at a mandatory Toronto school board training run by the highly respected Kike Ojo-Thompson of the KOJO Institute, and her subsequent reference to that interaction.

His lawyer, Lisa Bildy, said in a tweet, “He experienced an affront to that stellar reputation” at that workshop and “succumbed to his distress.”

The predictable backlash from the right rested its moral might on two claims:

  • a statement of claim after Bilkszto filed a civil lawsuit against the TDSB in April for not defending him in that workshop; and
  • the opinion of an insurance case manager at the WSIB (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) that allowed Bilkszto to file a claim for mental stress injury in August 2021. The case manager wrote that Ojo-Thompson’s conduct “was abusive, egregious and vexatious, and rises to the level of workplace harassment and bullying.”

This was not a finding based on a credible investigation, but government organizations are often given credulity even when not merited. In a statement on the KOJO website Thursday evening, Ojo-Thompson, who has done training at the Star previously, said she only heard about the lawsuit through media enquiries. “Additionally, KOJO was not part of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) insurance claim adjudication.”

At issue, based on news reports, were two statements. One, Ojo-Thompson challenging a beloved Canadian myth by stating “Canada is more racist than the United States” and, two, “reacting with vitriol” when the former principal objected as well as “humiliating” him by calling him a “white supremacist” and a “resistor.”

The Star obtained a copy of the recording of the two sessions in question from a source who was present at the meetings. Based on it:

Ojo-Thompson never said: “Canada is more racist than the United States.”

She never called Bilkszto a “white supremacist and resistor.”

The recordings reveal for the first time a fuller picture of the conversation and disagreement that has been cherry-picked, shorn off context and nuance, and presented by those with an agenda to villainize diversity initiatives.

They show that the Canada-U.S. comparisons — although perfectly legitimate — were not initiated by Ojo-Thompson but were repeatedly brought up by participants in the “questions, comments, aha-s” that she invites.

For instance, one white TDSB leader says reflectively: “We as Canadians like to say we’re not as bad as our neighbours to the south and we need to stop.” Another leader brings up an example of a Black person from the U.S. moving to Canada “in hopes of a better future for her two sons,” and says “she was furious with me. She said, ‘I thought it was better up here. … I cannot believe it’s worse.’”

In response, Ojo-Thompson leans on her personal experience as a Black woman to say: “I felt more normalized as a Black woman there than I do here. We’re invisibilized from the cultural fabric of this nation. Canada has never reckoned with its anti-Black history,” and, “I lived in the South. And I’m saying this factually without any hiccup. The racism we experience is far worse here than there.”

There is a vast difference between a Black woman comparing her personal experiences of racism in two countries and a blanket statement that one is worse than the other.

About 10 minutes before the session ends, Bilkszto speaks for the first time. He says he spent a lot of time in the U.S. and, “I invite everyone here to do some research and look at things like education and look how you think about a system we have in Ontario where every student is funded equally. But go to United States, they’re funded based on their tax base.”

Ojo-Thompson replies: “What you’re saying is not untrue, but … all I’m saying is that the Jane and Finch kids are not having the same experience as the Forest Hill kids. They’re just not. And that’s despite our equal laws.”

Bilkszto responds by adding: “We have a health-care system here where everyone has access to health care. It is not the same way in the United States. So to sit here and say, in all honesty, we’re talking about facts and figures and to walk into the classroom tomorrow and say Canada is just as bad as the United States, I think we’re doing an incredible disservice to our learners.”

That’s not a help-me-understand question typically posed by workshop participants to trainers. That’s a man saying to a woman, an expert on anti-racism, at the end of a session that is replete with history, data, experience and nuance, that she’s flat-out wrong.

Ojo-Thompson points out a fallacy in his argument. “What I’m finding interesting is that this is in the middle of this COVID disaster, where the inequities in this fair and equal health care system have been properly shown to all of us.”

She then pivots to the principle of the point behind his original challenge of her experience of racism as a Black woman in Canada versus the U.S.

“So we’re here to talk about anti-Black racism, but you in your whiteness think that you can tell me what’s really going on for Black people? Like, is that what you’re doing? Because I think that’s what you’re doing, but I’m not sure. So I’m going to leave you space to tell me what you’re doing right now.”

Anti-racism training sessions are by definition challenging discussions. In every session, Ojo-Thompson references the normalcy of emotions coming up and the importance of accepting them rather than going into flight or freeze defensive postures.

At in-person sessions, defensiveness comes across in the body language, in whether an attendee is participating or avoiding engaging, in whether they choose to cry (you’ll be surprised). You can also tell by the tone of the questions.

Since this was a Zoom session, Ojo-Thompson made a note about that last point. She noted that there were people in the session who were Black, well-informed, well-educated. “Part of this work is listening to Black people,” she says. “Remember, as white people. There’s a whole bunch going on that isn’t your personal experience. … You will never know it to be so. So your job in this work as white people is to believe. And if what you want is clarification, ask for that. Truly. Not with a foot in the: ‘Yeah, but I’m going to tell you how you’re wrong.’ It’s the: ‘Help me understand further, please, because I actually don’t know.’”

She concludes by calling it “a profound and an appropriate teachable moment.”

That was 10 minutes done. Disagreement? Yes. Bullying and harassment? Not seeing it.

At a subsequent meeting the next week, Ojo-Thompson began by revisiting the concept of resistance that she mentioned even before the interaction with Bilkszto and how resistance upholds white supremacy. “I want to open by going back to the concept of resistance,” which “is going to be the most transformational, because we don’t talk enough about the many, many responses to the work, what they look like.”

Soon after she says, “One of the ways that white supremacy is upheld, protected, reproduced, upkept, defended is through resistance.”

Then she references the interaction with Bilkszto from the previous week, saying, “who would have thought my luck would show up so well last week that we got perfect evidence of a wonderful example of resistance that you all got to bear witness to. So we’re going to talk about it, because it doesn’t get better than this.”

This is Ojo-Thompson, doing the hard job of managing a zoom session with 199 people, training leaders on not just the presumptions that lead to discriminations but also how to recognize the resistance to it. This cannot be considered shaming Bilkszto by calling him “a resistor.” Nor is suggesting upholding white supremacy the same as calling someone a white supremacist.

In the previous session, before Bilkszto spoke, Ojo-Thompson had pointed out how one doesn’t even having to be white to uphold white supremacy, that there are “all kinds of kickbacks and rewards” for upholding white supremacy and “you see all kinds of non-white people, for example, attempting to uphold the values of white supremacy, even among Indigenous people, Black people.”

The far-right media ecosystem — organizations and commentators — quickly plumbed the depths of opportunism after Bilkszto ended his life and turned it into an international firestorm.

They martyred Bilkszto to their cause of villainizing diversity, equity and inclusion work and made a target of Ojo-Thompson not just by framing her as a bully but by suggesting her words drove him to suicide. They splashed her face across stories, sometimes multiple times in one story.

The malice spread, and in short order Ontario announced a review of these allegations with a view to “reform professional training.”

On Thursday, the TDSB said it launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Bilksztoszto’s death.

Consider this: On the one hand, reams of data that show racism maims and kills. That the system of white supremacy has caused an epidemic of suicides among Indigenous peoples. That the risk of suicide among LGBTQ2+ people is rising.

On the other hand, an isolated tragedy, contentiously linked to a conversation the anti-anti-racists don’t want to have.

Guess which of the two the system comes down on.

If Canadians want to do nothing about our racism, then let’s be open about it. Otherwise, we better believe Black women. Protect Black women.

Source: A Toronto principal’s suicide was wrongly linked to anti-racism training. Here’s what was really said

Cohen: American Jews are loudly protesting Israel’s anti-judiciary law. In Canada — not so much, Juneau: Canada must rethink its friendship with Israel

Significant contrast:

On the day Israel’s Knesset passed the Reasonableness Standard Law — a frontal assault on the independence of its judiciary — something strange and wondrous happened among America’s fractious Jews: they agreed, broadly speaking, that the law is a mistake and said so.

The chorus of disapproval came not just from progressive Jews but organizations representing mainstream Jews, and some conservative ones, too. The American Jewish Committee issued a statement expressing “profound disappointment” and lamenting that the new law was “pushed through unilaterally by the governing coalition,” causing “discord” in Israel and “straining the vital relationship” with the diaspora.

The committee argued that “dramatic changes” to the judicial system should come from “a deliberative and inclusive process” respecting checks and balances, minority rights and judicial independence. Other mainstream U.S. organizations echoed the criticism. The Anti–Defamation League said the law “could weaken Israeli democracy and harm Israel’s founding principles.” The Jewish Federations of North America was “extremely disappointed” the law had been passed “without a process of consensus,” despite “serious disagreement across Israeli society” amid strenuous efforts to forge “a compromise.”

Pointedly, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, among the most stalwart pro-Israeli organizations, did not comment. But Democratic Majority for Israel, a pro-Israel committee within the Democratic Party, said it was “a serious mistake” for Israel to ignore the protests of “the majority of its citizens …”

This displeasure of the Jewish establishment, though not as strong as in other quarters, shows an evolution among American Jews. Criticizing Israel was once heretical among these groups. No longer.

None of these organizations is as angry as many among this country’s 5.8 million Jews, who are increasingly skeptical of Israel. A growing number think it’s time that President Joe Biden lean heavily on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his old, unreconstructed adversary. “Bibi” has fallen in with the hard right on judicial reform, from settlers who want to annex the West Bank to orthodox Jews who want to enshrine exemption from military service.

Biden has issued appeals but no threats. He never raises, for example, the $3.8 billion U.S. in assistance Israel receives annually from the United States. Interestingly, Israel, a wealthy country more secure than ever, no longer needs the money. Still, it is seen as untouchable.

While Jews in Britain, Australia and other countries have joined those here in opposition, it’s entirely different in Canada, an unserious country, where only progressives see the danger.

“This is a dark day,” declared Joe Roberts, chair of JSpaceCanada. “I cannot begin to explain how gutted I am.” He and others worry about an emasculated court that can no longer protect the rights of Palestinians, migrant workers, women and the LGBTQ+ community in Israel against an oppressive government.

The New Israel Fund of Canada has issued an urgent appeal. “Today we need you more than ever,” said executive director Ben Murane. “We will never back down.”

Astoundingly, though, from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), the “advocacy agent” that “represents the diverse perspectives and concerns of more than 150,000 Jewish Canadians,” there was not a peep of protest. Maybe it missed the news.

Then again, the director of CIJA’s office in Jerusalem is David Weinberg, who supported the judicial reforms in a published commentary. These are his personal views, CIJA insists. But it’s likely they are equally those of CIJA’s unelected and unaccountable executive, especially CEO Shimon Fogel. He knows that these are not those of Canadian Jews but hasn’t the courage to say so.

It raises the question: Why doesn’t CIJA stop hiding and come out and support the reforms? At least that would be honourable. For its part, the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto issued yet another purée of platitudes. It is concerned that Israelis are divided and hopes for “compromise.” What we need is more dialogue, it urges, finding solace in earnestness and ambiguity.

Oh. Lord. As Israel’s Supreme Court prepares to hear petitions on the new law — which may well spark an unprecedented constitutional crisis there this autumn — behold, once again, the sad silence of Canada’s Jewish establishment.

Source: Cohen: American Jews are loudly protesting Israel’s anti-judiciary law. In Canada — not so much

Thomas Juneau asking a needed question:

This week, the Israeli parliament approved a controversial law that constrains the Supreme Court’s ability to provide judicial oversight of government actions. According to many critics, this is only the first step in a plan by the coalition government led by Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu to concentrate power in the executive branch. The Netanyahu government, which includes Jewish supremacists and is the most extreme in the country’s history, has also taken steps, and will likely take additional ones, toward Israel’s further annexation of the West Bank.

This raises difficult questions for Canada: should we stand by as the assault on democratic norms and Palestinian rights continues? The easy answer would be to muddle along, perhaps offering timid condemnation. The status quo, however, is increasingly unsustainable.

Like its allies, Canada’s position is to support the two-state solution, according to which Israel and an eventual Palestinian state would co-exist. Yet it is now difficult to see how this outcome can be achieved. On the Israeli side, intransigent governments have expanded settlements in the West Bank, largely closing the door on a viable Palestinian state. The road has been further blocked by the fragmentation of the Palestinian leadership, with the incompetent Palestinian Authority barely governing in the West Bank and the extremist Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip with an iron fist. In the meantime, the status quo is deeply unfair to Palestinians and destabilizing for the region.

The case can certainly be made that maintaining the fiction of the two-state solution is the least bad approach given the absence of viable alternatives. It is one thing to recognize that the two-state solution is dead; it is another to come up with a better, realistic alternative. Moreover, proponents of the status quo argue that Israel is and should remain a close friend. This is partly valid: There is no serious proposal to jettison the partnership, which indeed is beneficial for Canada. To their discredit, some supporters of the status quo far too easily launch accusations of antisemitism in response to criticism of Israeli policies. This is dishonest and stifles constructive and necessary debate. The question here is not to reject Israel’s right to exist, but to criticize some of its policies and ask whether Canada’s current approach is optimal.

The broader objectives of Canada’s foreign policy matter. It is inevitable that Canada’s focus on the Middle East will diminish. Ottawa simply has other priorities: The most important one, and one which could come under severe strain in the near future, remains the management of its relations with the United States. In addition, Canada needs to boost its presence in Asia, while the war in Ukraine shows the necessity of continuing its contributions to transatlantic security. The remaining bandwidth, for the Middle East and other areas, will shrink.

In this context, Canada should publicly state that it refuses to deal with the more extremist ministers in the Netanyahu government. It should vocally express its opposition to the proposed reforms and freeze or reduce co-operation with Israel on some issues. Ottawa should also boost its support for Palestinian civil society and increase pressure on the Palestinian Authority to reform itself and organize fresh elections. More concretely, Canada should evaluate whether its longstanding mission to train Palestinian security forces should continue since doing so entrenches the status quo by allowing Israel to delegate to the Palestinian Authority the day-to-day administration of the occupation in the West Bank. Ottawa should also suspend its policy of almost systematically voting with Israel at the United Nations General Assembly on resolutions dealing with the conflict.

Given its marginal influence when it acts alone, Canada should also engage in serious conversations with like-minded allies and partners, including through the Group of Seven, about options to change the status quo in relations with Israel and the Palestinians. Canada’s partnership with Israel has been premised on shared values, and with Israel’s government now dominated by extremist elements who are undermining the two-state solution, we can’t keep acting like it’s business as usual.

Source: Canada must rethink its friendship with Israel

Globe editorial: Ottawa can’t wash its hands of Toronto’s refugee crisis

Yet another critical Globe editorial:

Here’s a short list of things that Ottawa spends money on but has no constitutional responsibility for: health care, child care, new fridges for big grocery companies, and Gen Y tech consultants for small businesses.

Source: Ottawa can’t wash its hands of Toronto’s refugee crisis

New housing minister says immigration can help address affordability, supply

Minister Fraser will learn that increasing housing supply is much more complex than raising immigration levels, with considerable time lags. Highly unlikely that any meaningful progress on the ground will be realized during the government’s mandate.

A cruel irony given his role as immigration minister in exacerbating the problem through high levels of permanent and temporary residents.

It is not a matter of “closing the door on newcomers” but rather more thoughtful immigration policies and levels that don’t worsen further housing, healthcare and infrastructure for new and old Canadians alike, and that take these into account when setting levels:

Canada’s new housing and infrastructure minister says closing the door to newcomers is not the solution to the country’s housing woes, and has instead endorsed building more homes to accommodate higher immigration flows.

Sean Fraser, who previously served as immigration minister, was sworn in Wednesday morning as part of a Liberal government cabinet shuffle aimed at showcasing a fresh team ahead of the next federal election.

He comes into the role at a time when strong population growth through immigration is adding pressure to housing demand at a time when the country is struggling with an affordability crisis.

“The answer is, at least in part, to continue to build more stock,” Fraser told reporters after being sworn in.

“But I would urge caution to anyone who believes the answer to our housing challenges is to close the door on newcomers.”

Instead, the minister said immigration would be part of the solution to the housing challenge.

“When I talked to developers, in my capacity as a minister of immigration before today, one of the chief obstacles to completing the projects that they want to get done is having access to the labour force to build the houses that they need,” he said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to hand over the federal housing file to the Nova Scotia MP has been praised by experts who say that the Liberals need a strong communicator in charge as Canadians deal with an affordability crunch.

As part of the shakeup, the housing file has been merged with infrastructure and communities. Fraser said the goal is to look at housing and infrastructure projects together, rather than in isolation.

“If we encourage cities and communities to build more housing where infrastructure already exists or where it’s planned to be, we’re going to be able to leverage more progress for every public dollar that’s invested,” he said.

Ahmed Hussen, who became housing minister in 2021, has faced criticism for his handling of the file as the housing crisis worsened across the country.

Hussen is staying in cabinet as minister of international development.

“The selection of Sean, I think, is a recognition that the job requires fundamentally an energy and urgency and a passion in order to be able to effectively compete with the message that (Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre has put forward,” said Tyler Meredith, a former head of economic strategy and planning for Trudeau’s government.

Meredith said the choice to shift Fraser from immigration to housing also signals the federal government knows the two files are linked.

“If they lose the argument on housing, they will lose the argument on immigration, and they will then lose what is frankly, some of the some of the most effective pieces of their economic strategy,” Meredith said.

Canada’s population grew by more than one million people in 2022, a pace that experts say is adding pressure to housing demand. That, in turn, pushes up prices even further.

A recent analysis by BMO found that for every one per cent of population growth, housing prices typically increase by three per cent.

The Liberals have been taking a lot of heat from Poilievre for the state of the housing market. He’s blamed Trudeau’s government for the crisis, as well as municipal “gatekeepers” for standing in the way of new developments.

Poilievre has focused on the need to build more housing and has not weighed in on whether Canada needs to change the number of people it lets into the country.

The Conservative leader has also been particularly focused on speaking to young people struggling with affordability, commonly referring to the “35-year-olds still living in their parents’ basements” in the House of Commons.

Fraser, 39, acknowledged during the news conference that housing affordability is a major challenge facing younger Canadians in particular.

“It’s a real challenge for people my age and younger who are trying to get into the market, but it’s also a challenge for low-income families,” Fraser said.

“There’s no simple solutions, but if we continue to advance measures that help build more stock, that help make sure it’s easier for people to get into the market and make sure we’re offering protections for low-income families, particularly in vulnerable renting situations, we’re going to be able to make a meaningful difference.”

The housing crisis that once was associated with Vancouver and Toronto is now affecting all corners of the country, and experts say a shortage of homes is at its root.

The Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation has warned the country needs to build 3.5 million additional homes — on top of the current pace of building — to restore affordability by 2030.

Carolyn Whitzman, a housing policy expert and adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa, said the decision to combine housing and infrastructure is a good move.

“Housing is infrastructure. It’s essential, as essential as water and sewers and hospitals and schools, for the functioning of a society,” she said.

Whitzman also called Fraser a “fairly effective communicator” and noted his experience as immigration minister may also help inform his role in the housing file.

Source: New housing minister says immigration can help address affordability, supply

Yakabuski: The renewal theme rings hollow even as Justin Trudeau names seven new faces to cabinet

Pointed comments on Ministers Fraser and Miller, likely understate the challenges. And of course, turning up the dial on the number of permanent and temporary residents much easier than new housing:

Conveying renewal and stability at the same time is a neat trick, if you can manage it.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tried to do both with a cabinet shufflethat featured a slew of new faces on Wednesday, all while relying even more heavily on a quartet of tested ministers – and likely future leadership contenders – to carry the load of a government living on borrowed time.

Source: The renewal theme rings hollow even as Justin Trudeau names seven new faces to cabinet

Citizenship in an independent Scotland – gov.scot

Of note for the approach and messaging:

Scotland could take a fairer, and more welcoming approach to citizenship as an independent nation, according to a new paper published by First Minister Humza Yousaf.

‘Citizenship in an independent Scotland’, the fifth paper in the Building a New Scotland series’, sets out who could automatically become a citizen of an independent Scotland, and the pathway for others to qualify for Scottish citizenship, including those with a close and enduring connection to Scotland.

Other proposals in the paper include a fairer fee system for citizenship applications, based on cost recovery rather than revenue generation, and a commitment to establish an independent Migrants’ Commissioner – a key recommendation of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review.

The First Minister held a roundtable discussion at National Records of Scotland’s New Register House where he discussed the paper with representatives from migration policy organisations and individuals who may be eligible for citizenship under these proposals.

First Minister Humza Yousaf said:

“In this country, we are used to feeling a mix of identities. As a proud Scottish Pakistani, that’s something I understand and respect, and the policies in this paper would not require anybody to choose between being Scottish, British, or any other nationality.

“Instead, this paper proposes an open and inclusive approach to citizenship. One that welcomes people who want to settle in Scotland, rather than putting barriers and excessive fees in the way of individuals and their families.

“With our aging population, Scotland faces an urgent demographic challenge. That’s why we want to welcome more people, to join those who have already settled in communities across our country and are contributing to a better economy, higher living standards, and stronger public services like our NHS.

“Scottish citizens could also enjoy benefits such as the right to hold a Scottish passport, continued freedom of movement within the Common Travel Area, and eventually, following our commitment to re-join the EU as an independent nation, resumed rights as EU citizens.

“I hope this paper will help to answer questions people might have about citizenship in an independent Scotland, and I look forward to hearing people’s views on our proposals.”

Background

Building a New Scotland: Citizenship in an independent Scotland

Under these proposals, EU citizens resident in Scotland or the UK before 31 December 2020 would be entitled to receive settled status in Scotland, and a child born in Scotland after independence would automatically be a Scottish citizen if at least one of their parents was a Scottish, British or Irish citizen, or had ‘settled’ status in Scotland.

Those who want to become a Scottish citizen in future, including those with close and enduring connections to Scotland, could follow rules to apply for citizenship.

People resident in Scotland without Scottish citizenship would retain many of the same rights they currently hold, including rights to vote.

The previous four papers have set out evidence showing independent countries comparable to Scotland are wealthier and fairer than the UK; how Scottish democracy can be renewed with independence; the macroeconomic framework, including currency arrangements, for an independent Scotland; and how rights and equality could be at the heart of a written constitution developed by the people of Scotland.

Source: Citizenship in an independent Scotland – gov.scot

To blunt Poilievre’s outreach in cultural communities, Trudeau gives high-profile cabinet roles to MPs with diverse backgrounds, say some senior Liberals 

Of note. Of course, implementation and results count more than new faces around the table. But 29 percent of ministers are visible minority, a new high, and slightly higher than their share of the population:

In a major shuffle that is expected to set the stage as the prime minister’s election cabinet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promoted seven MPs to the front bench on Wednesday morning. He also shuffled some senior cabinet members with visible minority backgrounds, who were holding internationally focused portfolios to new portfolios with a domestic focus.

“This will help us re-solidify support within the visible minority communities,” said one Liberal MP who spoke with The Hill Times on a not-for-attribution basis to offer their candid views.

One of the biggest winners of the shuffle is three-term Liberal MP Arif Virani (Parkdale-High Park, Ont.) who joins the cabinet as the minister of justice and attorney general.

Liberal MP Gary Anandasangaree (Scarborough-Rouge Park, Ont.) also received a big promotion, moving into cabinet as the minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Rookie Liberal MP Rechie Valdez (Mississauga-Streetsville, Ont.) joins cabinet as minister of small business. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Hochelaga, Que.) picks up the portfolios of tourism and the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the region of Quebec. Ya’ara Saks (York Centre, Ont.) is the new minister of mental health and addictions and associate minister of health.

Virani is an Ismaili Muslim Canadian, Anandasangaree is Tamil Canadian, Valdez is Filipino Canadian, Ferrada is Chilean-Canadian, and Saks is Jewish Canadian. 

As for senior ministers who have been shuffled within cabinet, Anita Anand (Oakville, Ont.) leaves defence to become the Treasury Board president. Former international trade minister Harjit Sajjan takes on emergency preparedness, as well as responsibilities for the King’s Privy Council for Canada and the Pacific Economic Development Agency of Canada. Kamal Khera, the former minister for seniors, is now minister of diversity, inclusion, and persons with disabilities.

Sajjan and Khera are Sikh-Canadians, and Anand is Hindu.  

Traditionally, visible minority Canadians have been a strong base of support for the Liberal Party.

When Pierre Poilievre became Conservative leader last year, he quickly appointed Tim Uppal (Edmonton Millwoods, Alta.), a Sikh-Canadian, and Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, Ont.), a Jewish Canadian, as his deputy leaders. He also appointed Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, Altal), a Skih Canadian, as his finance critic. Recently, Arpan Khanna (Oxford, Ont.) and Shuvaloy Majumdar (Calgary Heritage, Alta,), both Hindu-Canadians, were elected as MPs in byelections. Khanna had previously served as the party’s outreach chair.

“That’s the main thing,” said the Liberal MP who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis. “To confront Poilievre and to break into new territory. Tamils are very enthusiastic about us, but Gary [Anandasangaree] will help us in maintaining that enthusiasm. Filipinos like us, but there’s no anchoring, and Veldez will do that.”

Visible minority communities play a key role in the outcome of swing ridings in major urban centres like the GTA, Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal. Conservatives believe that the next election is theirs to lose and are going all-in to secure support from visible minorities—an important part of the Liberal voter coalition.

“We need to go back to domestic local messaging. Bringing Sajjan, Anand back [to portfolios with domestic focus] is a good step,” said a senior Liberal. “They can be assets in the South Asian community. Arif [Virani] will be very helpful in the Muslim community.” 

Source: To blunt Poilievre’s outreach in cultural communities, Trudeau gives high-profile cabinet roles to MPs with diverse backgrounds, say some senior Liberals